Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.

You Leftists are always putting YOUR words, and hateful, bitter words at that, into other people's mouths. Then you proceed to attack on the basis of YOUR words placed into others' mouths.

The models of eco-hypocrites have been wrong, the predictions of eco-hypocrites have been wrong, the promised warming of a tenth or two of a degree is no big deal compared with normal seasonal changes, but the panic and paranoia continue from the preachy, fearful Left, unabated.

Love it. You say my descriptions are "hateful and bitter" - and then with your very next posts you prove that my descriptions are accurate.

Let's categorize them:

"the promised warming of a tenth or two is no big deal" - although of course inaccurate (it has already warmed 1.7F) this is a variant of type 3 denial - "OK so maybe it's warming a little, but it won't matter, stupid!"

"Ivar Giaever, explains how the global warming fraud is costing trillions of dollars and accomplishing nothing." - Type 4 denial. "OK so maybe some will be bad, but it's too late to change ANYTHING, stupid!"

"John Kerry states U.S. can do nothing about climate change even if all Americans stop using all fossil fuels." - Type 4 denial. "OK so maybe some will be bad, but it's too late to change ANYTHING, stupid!"

"Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago." - Type 1 denial. "The climate isn't warming, stupid!"

So you hit three of the four classic denials in two posts. Bravo! You have the "moral flexibility" to believe self-contradictory information that agrees with your political agenda. With an attitude like that, you'd make a fine addition to the Trump administration.

I eagerly away a type 2 denial. Then you will have hit them all. And I predict that the fact that your own positions contradict themselves won't slow you down at all.

Rapid change affecting the whole world, including poor and populous communities, will lead to some very serious problems for human societies, as I have outlined. There are likely to be migrations of large numbers of people, due to flooding and changes in land fertility. There are likely to be wars over water supply. Such things would not only exact a toll of human lives, but would lead to large costs incurred by nations involved in managing the aftermaths.

You may not be able to see this but I think it will be clear enough to most other readers.

P.S. thanks for including the word "ya" and thus conforming to one of my theories about internet discussions

The thing is... change would be happening regardless. Mini-ice age that caused mass migration just a couple hundred years ago ring a bell? One a couple kilo years before that that pushed mankind around the world and over the arctic landbridge? The current trend towards another mega-ice-age that is only being staved off by mankind's rekless release of energy into the system?

Just from the tone of your posts, I recommend you look into a book, because some decisions are worsened by the absence of logic.

Love it. You say my descriptions are "hateful and bitter" - and then with your very next posts you prove that my descriptions are accurate.

Let's categorize them:

"the promised warming of a tenth or two is no big deal" - although of course inaccurate (it has already warmed 1.7F) this is a variant of type 3 denial - "OK so maybe it's warming a little, but it won't matter, stupid!"

"Ivar Giaever, explains how the global warming fraud is costing trillions of dollars and accomplishing nothing." - Type 4 denial. "OK so maybe some will be bad, but it's too late to change ANYTHING, stupid!"

"John Kerry states U.S. can do nothing about climate change even if all Americans stop using all fossil fuels." - Type 4 denial. "OK so maybe some will be bad, but it's too late to change ANYTHING, stupid!"

"Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago." - Type 1 denial. "The climate isn't warming, stupid!"

So you hit three of the four classic denials in two posts. Bravo! You have the "moral flexibility" to believe self-contradictory information that agrees with your political agenda. With an attitude like that, you'd make a fine addition to the Trump administration.

I eagerly away a type 2 denial. Then you will have hit them all. And I predict that the fact that your own positions contradict themselves won't slow you down at all.

The thing is... change would be happening regardless. Mini-ice age that caused mass migration just a couple hundred years ago ring a bell? One a couple kilo years before that that pushed mankind around the world and over the arctic landbridge? The current trend towards another mega-ice-age that is only being staved off by mankind's rekless release of energy into the system?

You are correct; change would be happening regardless. It would just be happening much, much more slowly. It is the speed of the change that we have begun that is the problem.

You are correct; change would be happening regardless. It would just be happening much, much more slowly. It is the speed of the change that we have begun that is the problem.

As above: Volcanic emissions, geo-history. Manitude of order higher than anything humanity has done or can do, short of the theoretical possibility of detonating every nuke ever made simultaneously in the center of the Mariana Trench.

Rate of change does NOT seem to be a factor when you look at the reconstructed geo-records. It's one of the reasons you'll find a lot of "global warming skeptics" in the geologist community.

As above: Volcanic emissions, geo-history. Manitude of order higher than anything humanity has done or can do

That is incorrect. We are currently emitting far more CO2 than volcanoes are.

Rate of change does NOT seem to be a factor when you look at the reconstructed geo-records.

It is certainly not a factor when it comes to the primary forces that reshape the globe - plate tectonics and vulcanism primarily. It is a factor in terms of the lesser factors - erosion, chemical weathering, rebound.

But when it comes to humans, who desire cropland to produce food and shores that remain relatively stable, its a big factor. We are already seeing migrations due to climate change.

It's one of the reasons you'll find a lot of "global warming skeptics" in the geologist community.

Depends on the field. Most geologists agree that the earth is warming, and our AGW emissions are the primary cause. In a 2009 poll by Doran, 90% of people polled and 97% of people who publish in the field of climate change agree. The only field that was under 50% were economic geologists - the people who study what economic value geological deposits have. It is not suprising that people whose jobs are placed at risk by climate change might be incentivized to deny it.

Love it. You say my descriptions are "hateful and bitter" - and then with your very next posts you prove that my descriptions are accurate.

Let's categorize them:

"the promised warming of a tenth or two is no big deal" - although of course inaccurate (it has already warmed 1.7F) this is a variant of type 3 denial - "OK so maybe it's warming a little, but it won't matter, stupid!"

"Ivar Giaever, explains how the global warming fraud is costing trillions of dollars and accomplishing nothing." - Type 4 denial. "OK so maybe some will be bad, but it's too late to change ANYTHING, stupid!"

"John Kerry states U.S. can do nothing about climate change even if all Americans stop using all fossil fuels." - Type 4 denial. "OK so maybe some will be bad, but it's too late to change ANYTHING, stupid!"

"Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago." - Type 1 denial. "The climate isn't warming, stupid!"

So you hit three of the four classic denials in two posts. Bravo! You have the "moral flexibility" to believe self-contradictory information that agrees with your political agenda. With an attitude like that, you'd make a fine addition to the Trump administration.

I eagerly away a type 2 denial. Then you will have hit them all. And I predict that the fact that your own positions contradict themselves won't slow you down at all.

You're using very underhanded debating tactics usually employed by people who are unable to support their position. You're using the strawman fallacy to deliberately misinterpret the statements of others and then attack those misinterpretations all the while avoiding any attempt to refute the actual points being made. It's a technique I see all the time on science forums, usually from people who support the more accepted position but without having any real understanding of the topic.

"I have found that there are four kinds of climate change denialists:

1) "The climate isn't warming, stupid!"

2) "OK so maybe the climate is changing, but man has nothing to do with it, stupid!"

3) "OK so maybe we sorta caused it, but the changes will all be good, stupid!"

4) "OK so maybe some will be bad, but it's too late to change ANYTHING, stupid!":

None of these positions are necessarily contradict any of the others. 1) The climate isn't warming that much, it's actually levelled off copared to predictions. 2) Our effect on the climate is minor at best. 3) Any effect we do have in the direction of warming may be beneficial given we're heading into a cooling phase that will greatly overpower any relatively recent warming. 4) Increased temperatures will cause localised problems, such as an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. See? No contradictions!

Solar forcing has a far larger effect on the climate than we ever could. One volcanic eruption not so long ago basically blocked out the sun for a whole year. The Earth has a natural cycle that it's beyond arrogant to think we could put a real dent into even if we wanted to. The climate also has numerous self correcting mechanisms.

There are a lot of people who stand to benefit from exaggerating warming and our influence on it. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. When they do 'studies' like the ones to determine whether our CO2 input is the driver of warming they're already told what conclusions they're being hired to come to before they start and the data is selected to favour those conclusions. This is how science is done.

The positions that the climate isn't changing, and that the climate is changing, are contradictory.

The positions that the climate is changing and we have nothing to do with it, and that the climate is changing, we have something to do with it, but the changes will be good are contradictory.

Now, if someone says "I think the changes will be less than the IPCC predicts based on X, Y and Z" - great. That's not denial. Likewise, if someone says "I think changes X and Y will be beneficial, and Z won't be" that's not denial. I am referring to the people whose one constant thread is denial. They switch between denial types based on whatever bit of research they can cherrypick that day. If on Monday they say that the climate may be changing, but it's all natural, they will argue that until they are blue in the face. Then, on Tuesday, they may come across a snippet about how one of the HADCRUT data sets was updated - and they will post "See? There's no warming!" That's because their objective is political, not scientific. They use science like a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, not illumination.

Incorrect. 2014, 2015 and 2016 showed a marked acceleration. On larger scales (i.e. averaging such spikes out) it is warming at about the rate the IPCC predicted, and shows no signs of leveling off.

"2) Our effect on the climate is minor at best."

Our AGW emissions are the primary reason we are seeing the warming we are seeing. We have increased CO2 concentrations, a primary greenhouse gas, by over 50%.

"3) Any effect we do have in the direction of warming may be beneficial given we're heading into a cooling phase that will greatly overpower any relatively recent warming."

If that were true we would be cooling. If you mean "we might hit a cooling trend in the future" that may be the case. We may also hit some natural warming. If those trends follow historical cases, they will be occur much more slowly than AGW changes.

"4) Increased temperatures will cause localised problems, such as an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes."

OK.

"Solar forcing has a far larger effect on the climate than we ever could. One volcanic eruption not so long ago basically blocked out the sun for a whole year."

Yes. And we emit so much CO2 that we have changed the climate for decades.

If the Sun's output were changing, then that would be a larger effect. It isn't.

"There are a lot of people who stand to benefit from exaggerating warming and our influence on it. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. "

And there are orders of magnitude more people who stand to benefit from denying it. The fossil fuel industry is far, far larger than the renewable energy industry, for example.

The positions that the climate isn't changing, and that the climate is changing, are contradictory.

But nobody said that. That's why it's a strawman.

The positions that the climate is changing and we have nothing to do with it, and that the climate is changing, we have something to do with it, but the changes will be good are contradictory.

Nobody said that either.

Now, if someone says "I think the changes will be less than the IPCC predicts based on X, Y and Z" - great. That's not denial. Likewise, if someone says "I think changes X and Y will be beneficial, and Z won't be" that's not denial. I am referring to the people whose one constant thread is denial. They switch between denial types based on whatever bit of research they can cherrypick that day. If on Monday they say that the climate may be changing, but it's all natural, they will argue that until they are blue in the face. Then, on Tuesday, they may come across a snippet about how one of the HADCRUT data sets was updated - and they will post "See? There's no warming!" That's because their objective is political, not scientific. They use science like a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, not illumination.

Yes. People arguing from a predetermined political ideology are a problem, on both sides.

Incorrect. 2014, 2015 and 2016 showed a marked acceleration. On larger scales (i.e. averaging such spikes out) it is warming at about the rate the IPCC predicted, and shows no signs of leveling off.

This isn't true, I don't know where you're getting this from but warming is well below predicted levels. The keep revising the warming down so if you're using the most recent 'prediction' then of course it's more or less accurate, but that's cheating!

Rising temperatures increase cloud cover that reflects sunlight, that's one of the built in self correction mechanisms. It's not like the dark clouds of Venus that trap all the heat.

"2) Our effect on the climate is minor at best."

Our AGW emissions are the primary reason we are seeing the warming we are seeing. We have increased CO2 concentrations, a primary greenhouse gas, by over 50%.

There's no evidence that links CO2 emission to rising temperatures. There is a correlation but that was broken the moment we started pumping it into the atmosphere. If you look at the temperature to CO2 increase correlation before the industrial revolution you can see that they diverge after that. You don't normally get to see the data that goes that far back.

"3) Any effect we do have in the direction of warming may be beneficial given we're heading into a cooling phase that will greatly overpower any relatively recent warming."

If that were true we would be cooling. If you mean "we might hit a cooling trend in the future" that may be the case. We may also hit some natural warming. If those trends follow historical cases, they will be occur much more slowly than AGW changes.

I said "heading into a cooling phase", as in not there yet. There's strong evidence to suggest the warming phase of the cycle is gradual but the cooling phase is rapid once we hit a tipping point. Of course you could argue that our emissions will push us there sooner,

"Solar forcing has a far larger effect on the climate than we ever could. One volcanic eruption not so long ago basically blocked out the sun for a whole year."

Yes. And we emit so much CO2 that we have changed the climate for decades.

If the Sun's output were changing, then that would be a larger effect. It isn't.

A change in orbital distance isn't required. The theory was that earth shifted from a circular to elliptical orbit and back again and the ice ages were the elliptical phase but I'm not sure if that model's still officially accepted. There's a Grand Solar Cycle as well as the more widely known 22 year cycle. It could well be what's driving the climate cycles on Earth.

"There are a lot of people who stand to benefit from exaggerating warming and our influence on it. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. "

And there are orders of magnitude more people who stand to benefit from denying it. The fossil fuel industry is far, far larger than the renewable energy industry, for example.

But it's not fashionable to be a 'climate change denier' and the people who run these studies do tend to lean very heavily in one political direction.

Whatever the impact we're having on the climate we should stop polluting the planet including pumping ****-tons of crap into the atmosphere. But we shouldn't have to lie to get people to see that.

That is incorrect. We are currently emitting far more CO2 than volcanoes are.

It is certainly not a factor when it comes to the primary forces that reshape the globe - plate tectonics and vulcanism primarily. It is a factor in terms of the lesser factors - erosion, chemical weathering, rebound.

But when it comes to humans, who desire cropland to produce food and shores that remain relatively stable, its a big factor. We are already seeing migrations due to climate change.

Depends on the field. Most geologists agree that the earth is warming, and our AGW emissions are the primary cause. In a 2009 poll by Doran, 90% of people polled and 97% of people who publish in the field of climate change agree. The only field that was under 50% were economic geologists - the people who study what economic value geological deposits have. It is not suprising that people whose jobs are placed at risk by climate change might be incentivized to deny it.

"That is incorrect. We are currently emitting far more CO2 than volcanoes are." 'Currently' is the word you use to spin my statement; that's being either willfully dishonest to the spirit of the words you're replying to, or accidentally misreading what I said. Geo-history, large timescales, aggregate data. Important things.

"Depends on the field...It is not suprising(sic) that people whose jobs are placed at risk by climate change might be incentivized to deny it." YouDO realise that the inverse is also true, right? Those whose jobs are DEPENDENT on incentivizing things like kyoto accords/carbon-tax, etc... would de-facto skew data and cherry-pick findings to keep money coming in. (Half the links to related articles in that are broken, but thanks to archivists you can find them with only cursory searches)

Climate change deniers say that. All the time. Those four positions are common positions of climate change deniers, not you. Indeed, I have only seen three of the four positions from any poster on this board so far.

This isn't true, I don't know where you're getting this from but warming is well below predicted levels. The keep revising the warming down so if you're using the most recent 'prediction' then of course it's more or less accurate, but that's cheating!

Nope. I am using the 1990 IPCC predictions. Chapter 6, page 190. Look at graph B. That's their median sensitivity plot. Now note the BaU (business-as-usual) trace. It predicts we will hit 1.6 degrees F warming by 2020. We hit it in 2016. If you want to argue and say "that's not the AVERAGE, it was a one time peak" then the average will hit that around 2020 if the current trend keeps up. Pretty good for a 28 year old prediction.

Rising temperatures increase cloud cover that reflects sunlight, that's one of the built in self correction mechanisms. It's not like the dark clouds of Venus that trap all the heat.

Clouds during the day reduce temperature by reflecting light energy. Clouds during the night increase temperature by retaining heat. (Note the title of this thread.) Which one will dominate? We don't know yet. It's one of the less well understood feedback mechanisms. So far they have roughly balanced out, based on weather observations.

BTW it is the CO2 of Venus's atmosphere that traps all that heat.

There's no evidence that links CO2 emission to rising temperatures. There is a correlation but that was broken the moment we started pumping it into the atmosphere.

We know four things:

1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (Provable by a high school level experiment.)

2) If you add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere without changing anything else more heat will be retained. (Basic thermodynamics.)

3) We have significantly increased the concentration of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. (Easy to calculate since the tonnage of coal, oil and gas burned every year is well known - and it's easy to measure the increasing concentration.)

3) Temperatures have been increasing since we started adding CO2 into the atmosphere. (Proof - instrumental temperature record)

Those are four very strong pieces of evidence - and are the basis for the carbon dioxide component of AGW. Those four pieces of evidence, combined with subsequent modeling and observation (and contributions from other anthropogenic changes) is why 97% of the scientific community accepts the science behind climate change.

I said "heading into a cooling phase", as in not there yet. There's strong evidence to suggest the warming phase of the cycle is gradual but the cooling phase is rapid once we hit a tipping point.

Unfortunately for that hypothesis, the warming we are seeing is quite rapid in terms of climate history. And so far the most likely tipping points result in rapid increases, not decreases, in temperature. These include:

1) Loss of polar ice. Open water absorbs more solar radiation than ice.

2) Melting of tundra and clathrates. These release methane, which is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

3) Increased evaporation. Water is the strongest greenhouse gas there is. The more evaporation, the more water in the atmosphere - and the more warming we see.

Some of these are being seen already (loss of polar ice, melting of tundra.)

A change in orbital distance isn't required.

?? OK. I said nothing about "a change in orbital distance." Were you perhaps answering someone else?

But it's not fashionable to be a 'climate change denier' and the people who run these studies do tend to lean very heavily in one political direction.

Are you kidding? We have a president and a congress here in the US who have made climate change denial the politically correct opinion. It gets you jobs and promotions within the government and within the massive fossil fuel industry. Some researchers are willing to buck political correctness, but it comes at a heavy cost (being fired, getting death threats etc.)

YOU, putting YOUR words, such as "stupid" in other people's mouths is hateful and bitter.

Sorry you don't like them. Perhaps you could speak to some of your climate change denier friends and get them to change the words they use? I have been called stupid dozens of times for discussing climate change. Now you've added "hateful and bitter." Will you next attack me for putting those words in your mouth, words you just posted?